Summary
In Sours v. Chavez, 2:08-cv-01903 (March 24, 2011), aff'd 466 Fed. App'x 637 (Jan. 19, 2012), Judge Bolton had found an improper delegation of authority by the district court to the BOP to set restitution payments through the IFRP, and she ordered the BOP to stop collecting payments.
Summary of this case from Smiley v. SmithOpinion
No. 11-15797 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01903-SRB
01-19-2012
WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICARDO E. CHAVEZ, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
William Scott Sours appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for contempt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sours contends the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion because the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated the district court's August 27, 2009, order to stop collecting restitution payments through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP).
We review the denial of a motion for contempt for abuse of discretion. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 464 (9th Cir. 1989). The record shows that the BOP began collecting restitution payments again after Sours voluntarily entered into a contract and agreed to participate in the IFRP. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for contempt. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) ("[N]othing in the text of the statute or our prior decisions places any limits on the BOP's operation of an independent program, such as the IFRP, that encourages inmates voluntarily to make more generous restitution payments than mandated in their respective judgments.").
AFFIRMED.